Asthma Control in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Treated with Reslizumab: Spanish Real-Life Data

Biologics for severe asthma and beyond

Advances in pathophysiological understanding and the elucidation of a type 2 inflammatory signature with interleukins 4, 5 and 13 at its center have led to the development of targeted antibody therapies that are now approved for the treatment of severe asthma. In suitable patients, these medications reduce asthma exacerbations and the necessity for oral corticosteroids, improve asthma control, quality of life and lung function. A proportion of patients with severe asthma may even achieve remission under ongoing biologic therapy. Type-2 inflammatory comorbidities are frequent in patients with severe asthma, sharing overlapping pathophysiology and may similarly respond to biologic treatment. Here, we give an overview of the six biologic therapies currently approved for severe asthma and review randomized clinical trials and real-life studies in asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. We also discuss selection of biologics according to licensing criteria, asthma phenotype and biomarkers, monitoring of treatment response and proceedings in case of insufficient outcome under therapy.

Personalized and Precision Medicine in Asthma and Eosinophilic Esophagitis: The Role of T2 Target Therapy

The role of type 2 inflammation has been progressively associated with many diseases, including severe asthma, atopic dermatitis, nasal polyposis, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and, recently, eosinophilic esophagitis. Despite this, the association between asthma and esophagitis is still poorly known, and this is probably because of the low prevalence of each disease and the even lower association between them. Nonetheless, observations in clinical trials and, subsequently, in real life, have allowed researchers to observe how drugs acting on type 2 inflammation, initially developed and marketed for severe asthma, could be effective also in treating eosinophilic esophagitis. For this reason, clinical trials specifically designed for the use of drugs targeted to type 2 inflammation were also developed for eosinophilic esophagitis. The results of clinical trials are presently promising and envisage the use of biologicals that are also likely to be employed in the field of gastroenterology in the near future. This review focuses on the use of biologicals for type 2 inflammation in cases of combined severe asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Response to Biologics and Clinical Remission in the Adult German Asthma Net Severe Asthma Registry Cohort

BACKGROUND

Recently, criteria for evaluation of response to biologics have been proposed and the concept of clinical remission has gained attention as a possible goal even in severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the response and remission in the German Asthma Net severe asthma registry cohort.

METHODS

We included adults not using a biologic at baseline (V0) and compared patients treated between V0 and 1-year visit (V1) without using a biologic (group A) to patients starting with a biologic after V0 and continuing it up to V1 (group B). We applied the Biologics Asthma Response Score to quantify composite response in good, intermediate, or insufficient. We defined clinical remission (R) as absence of significant symptoms (Asthma Control Test score ≥ 20 at V1) in the absence of exacerbations and oral corticosteroid therapy.

RESULTS

Group A included 233 and group B 210 patients, the latter receiving omalizumab (n = 33), mepolizumab (n = 40), benralizumab (n = 81), reslizumab (n = 1), or dupilumab (n = 56). At baseline, group B had less often an allergic phenotype (35.2% vs 41.6%), lower Asthma Control Test score (median, 12 vs 14), more exacerbations in the past year (median, 3 vs 2), and more often high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment (71.4% vs 51.5%) than group A. After 1 year of treatment, rates of response (good: 61.4% vs 34.8%; intermediate: 26.7% vs 42.9%; insufficient: 11.9% vs. 22.3%) and/or clinical remission (37.6% vs 17.2%) were higher in group B than in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more severe asthma at baseline, patients treated with biologics had a markedly higher probability of achieving good clinical response and/or remission than patients treated without biologics.

The Role of Eosinophil-Derived Neurotoxin and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in the Pathogenesis of Eosinophilic Asthma

Asthma is a chronic complex pulmonary disease characterized by airway inflammation, remodeling, and hyperresponsiveness. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) are two significant mediators involved in the pathophysiology of asthma. In asthma, VEGF and EDN levels are elevated and correlate with disease severity and airway hyperresponsiveness. Diversity in VEGF polymorphisms results in the variability of responses to glucocorticosteroids and leukotriene antagonist treatment. Targeting VEGF and eosinophils is a promising therapeutic approach for asthma. We identified lichochalcone A, bevacizumab, azithromycin (AZT), vitamin D, diosmetin, epigallocatechin gallate, IGFBP-3, Neovastat (AE-941), endostatin, PEDF, and melatonin as putative add-on drugs in asthma with anti-VEGF properties. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of those drugs. AZT reduces the exacerbation rate and may be considered in adults with persistent symptomatic asthma. However, the long-term effects of AZT on community microbial resistance require further investigation. Vitamin D supplementation may enhance corticosteroid responsiveness. Herein, anti-eosinophil drugs are reviewed. Among them are, e.g., anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab), anti-IL-13 (lebrikizumab and tralokinumab), anti-IL-4 and anti-IL-13 (dupilumab), and anti-IgE (omalizumab) drugs. EDN over peripheral blood eosinophil count is recommended to monitor the asthma control status and to assess the efficacy of anti-IL-5 therapy in asthma.

Recent developments in the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the type 2 cytokines for severe asthma treatment

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life with attendant implications for healthcare costs. Marked heterogeneity in symptoms and at the molecular phenotypic level are hallmarks of asthma resulting in the requirement of specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 have become established as effective treatments for severe asthma, with significant clinical benefit seen in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account. The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab as add-on therapy for patients with severe asthma: A real-world Dutch cohort study

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab as add-on treatment for severe uncontrolled asthma (SA) has shown to be effective and safe by phase-III-trials. Real-world data on clinical efficacy and safety is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of dupilumab as add-on therapy for SA in a real-world cohort.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The primary endpoint was annually exacerbation-rate (AER). Secondary outcomes were maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) dependency, asthma control (ACQ-5), pulmonary function (FEV₁), quality of life (AQLQ) and frequency of reported adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Overall, 148 patients were included. Median AER [IQR] reduced from 4.00 [2.00-5.00] at baseline to 1.00 [0.00-2.00] at 12 months (p < 0.001). mOCS-dependency reduced from 39.9% of the patients at baseline, to 20.3% at 6 months and to 14.9% at 12 months (p < 0.001). Median ACQ improved from 3.00 [2.00-3.80] at baseline to 1.80 [0.60-2.95] after 6 months and to 1.40 [0.20-2.60] after 12 months (p < 0.001). Median FEV₁ (L) improved from 2.21 [1.58-2.85] to 2.50 [2.00-3.06] at 6 months and to 2.51 [1.88-3.04] after 12 months (p < 0.001). The outcomes improved most in subgroups with high eosinophils (≥300/μL) or FeNO (≥50 ppb) at baseline. AEs were reported by 45.3% (67/148), of which headache was most frequent.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that dupilumab as add-on therapy for SA is associated with significant improvements in exacerbation-rate, mOCS-dependency, asthma control, pulmonary function, and quality of life. These results are in line with those of previous phase-III-trials.

Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma

In recent years, the more widespread availability of biological drugs with specific mechanisms of action has led to significant breakthroughs in the management of severe asthma. Over time, numerous randomised clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologics and define the eligibility criteria of patients suitable for various therapeutic options. These studies were conducted under controlled conditions not always applicable to real life. For this and other reasons, real-world evidence and pragmatic studies are required to provide useful information on the effectiveness of biological drugs and their safety, even in the long term. Because differences in outcomes have sometimes emerged between clinical trials and real-life studies, it is important to clarify the causes of these discrepancies and define the significance of the results of studies conducted in the course of daily clinical practice. Thus, a scientific debate is ongoing, and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of this narrative review is to analyse the differences between randomised trials and real-world evidence studies, focusing on their roles in guiding clinicians among different therapeutic options and understanding the reasons for the large discrepancies often found in the results obtained.

Specific Therapy for T2 Asthma

Asthma is a disease with high incidence and prevalence, and its severe form accounts for approximately 10% of asthmatics. Over the last decade, the increasing knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the disease allowed the development of biological drugs capable of sufficiently controlling symptoms and reducing the use of systemic steroids. The best-known mechanisms are those pertaining to type 2 inflammation, for which drugs were developed and studied. Those biological treatments affect crucial points of bronchial inflammation. Among the mechanisms explored, there were IgE (Omalizumab), interleukin 5 (Mepolizumab and Reslizumab), interleukin 5 receptor alpha (Benralizumab) and interleukin 4/13 receptor (Dupilumab). Under investigation and expected to be soon commercialized is the monoclonal antibody blocking the thymic stromal lymphopoietin (Tezepelumab). Seemingly under study and promising, are anti-interleukin-33 (itepekimab) and anti-suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 (astegolimab). With this study, we want to provide an overview of these drugs, paying particular attention to their mechanism of action, the main endpoints reached in clinical trials, the main results obtained in real life and some unclear points regarding their usage.